advocatemmmohan

My photo

ADVOCATEMMMOHAN -  Practicing both IN CIVIL, CRIMINAL AND FAMILY LAWS,Etc.,

WELCOME TO LEGAL WORLD

WELCOME TO MY LEGAL WORLD - FOR KNOWLEDGE IN LAW & FOR LEGAL OPINIONS - SHARE THIS

Wednesday, October 1, 2014

Criminal complaint under sec.406 and sec.6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act - against the Grand father( Their relationship with the husband of the complainant was remote as grand father of the appellant No.1 was brother of grand father of the husband of the complainant. ) - petition to quash the complaint against them - High court rejected - Apex court held that In the FIR, the appellants have not been named and in the criminal complaint they have been named without attributing any specific role to them.The Court has, thus, to be careful in summoning distant relatives without there being specific material. Only the husband, his parents or at best close family members may be expected to demand dowry or to harass the wife but not distant relations, unless there is tangible material to support allegations made against such distant relations. Mere naming of distant relations is not enough to summon them in absence of any specific role and material to support such role. and as such set aside the order of High court and quashed the proceedings against the petitioners only = CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2055 of 2014 [Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.4656 of 2011] KAILASH CHANDRA AGRAWAL & ANR. ..... APPELLANTS VERSUS STATE OF U.P. & ORS. ..... RESPONDENTS = 2014 - Sept. Month - http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41924

 Criminal complaint under sec.406 and sec.6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act - against the Grand father( Their relationship  with  the husband of the complainant was remote as grand father of the appellant  No.1 was brother of grand father of the husband  of  the  complainant. ) - petition to quash the complaint against them - High court rejected - Apex court held that  In the  FIR,
the appellants have not been named and in the criminal complaint  they  have been named without attributing any specific role to them.The Court has, thus, to be  careful  in  summoning  distant  relatives without there being specific material.  Only the husband, his parents or  at best close family members may be expected to demand dowry or to  harass  the wife but not  distant  relations,  unless  there  is  tangible  material  to support allegations made against such distant  relations.   Mere  naming  of distant relations is not enough to summon them in absence  of  any  specific role and material to support such role. and as such set aside the order of High court and quashed the proceedings against the petitioners only =

 declining
to quash the proceedings against the appellants under  Section  406  of  the
Indian Penal Code and Section 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.=

    We have gone through the FIR and the criminal complaint.
In the  FIR,
the appellants have not been named and in the criminal complaint  they  have
been named without attributing any specific role to them.
The  relationship
of the appellants with the husband of the complainant is distant.
In  Kans Raj vs. State of Punjab & Ors.[1], it was observed:-
“5………A tendency has, however, developed for roping in all relations  of  the
in-laws of the deceased wives in the matters of dowry deaths which,  if  not
discouraged, is likely to affect the case of the  prosecution  even  against
the real culprits. In their over enthusiasm and anxiety to  seek  conviction
for maximum people, the parents of  the  deceased  have  been  found  to  be
making efforts for involving other relations  which  ultimately  weaken  the
case of the prosecution even against the real accused  as  appears  to  have
happened in the instant case.”

      The Court has, thus, to be  careful  in  summoning  distant  relatives
without there being specific material.
Only the husband, his parents or  at
best close family members may be expected to demand dowry or to  harass  the
wife but not  distant  relations,  unless  there  is  tangible  material  to
support allegations made against such distant  relations.   Mere  naming  of
distant relations is not enough to summon them in absence  of  any  specific
role and material to support such role.


10.   The parameters for quashing proceedings in a  criminal  complaint  are
well known.
If there are triable issues, the Court is not  expected  to  go
into the veracity of the rival versions but where on the  face  of  it,  the
criminal proceedings are abuse of  Court’s  process,  quashing  jurisdiction
can be exercised.  
Reference may be made to  K.  Ramakrsihna  and  Ors.  vs.
State of Bihar and Anr.[2], Pepsi Foods Ltd. and Anr. vs.  Special  Judicial
Magistrate and Ors.[3], State of Haryana and Ors. vs.  Ch.  Bhajan  Lal  and
Ors.[4] and Asmathunnisa  vs.  State  of  A.P.  represented  by  the  Public
Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad and Anr.[5].

11.   Applying the above tests, the proceedings  in  the  present  case  are
clearly the abuse of the Court’s process.

12.   Accordingly, we allow this appeal and quash  the  proceedings  against
the appellants, without  expressing  any  opinion  about  the  case  of  the
complainant against the other accused.


   2014 - Sept. Month - http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41924

                                                          NON-REPORTABLE

                        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
                       CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                      CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2055 of 2014
       [Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.4656 of 2011]


KAILASH CHANDRA AGRAWAL & ANR.             ..... APPELLANTS

VERSUS

STATE OF U.P. & ORS.                                ..... RESPONDENTS


                               J U D G M E N T



ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.

1.    Leave granted.

2.      This   appeal    has    been    preferred    against    the    Order
dated 2nd May, 2011 of the High Court of Judicature of  Allahabad  declining
to quash the proceedings against the appellants under  Section  406  of  the
Indian Penal Code and Section 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

3.      The   case   of   the   complainant   in    the    FIR    registered
on 4th May, 2010 in the Bhelupur Police Station  at  Varanasi  is  that  her
marriage was solemnised on 30th April, 2005.  Her brothers who lived  abroad
gave lot of dowry and cash in the marriage but her family could  not  fulfil
more demands raised by the elder brother of her husband’s  father,  who  was
the head of the joint family on account  of  which  family  members  of  her
husband were not satisfied and tortured her.  On  account  of  torture,  she
came to her parents house with her child on  1st  March,  2009  she  gave  a
complaint          on 27th April, 2010 leading to registration  of  the  FIR
                        on 4th May, 2010.  She also filed complaint  in  the
Court of Additional  Chief  Judicial  Magistrate,  Varanasi.   In  the  said
complaint, the appellants were summoned  vide  Order  dated  30th  November,
2010.

4.    Aggrieved by the said summons, the appellants  moved  the  High  Court
under Section 482 OF THE Code of Criminal  Procedure    (Cr.P.C.)  with  the
plea that the summoning was not justified as neither they were named in  the
FIR  got  registered  by  the  complainant  nor  any  individual  role   was
attributed to them in the criminal complaint.  Their relationship  with  the
husband of the complainant was remote as grand father of the appellant  No.1
was brother of grand father of the husband  of  the  complainant.   In  such
remote relationship, the appellants will have no  interest  in  raising  any
demand for dowry or  causing  any  harassment  to  the  complainant.   Their
implication was thus, clear abuse of the process of the Court.
5.    The High Court dismissed the petition with the  observation  that  the
statement of the complainant under Sections 200 and 202,  Cr.P.C.  disclosed
the commission of offence and thus there was no illegality in the  order  of
summoning.

6.    We have heard learned counsel for the parties.

7.    Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that marriage took  place
in the year 2005 and a child was born on 15th January, 2009.  Complaint  was
filed in the year 2010 after filing of divorce petition by  the  husband  of
the complainant on 24th April, 2010.  In the  FIR,  initially  filed,  there
was no allegation against the appellants but in  the  subsequent  complaint,
the appellants were also named as accused without  any  specific  allegation
against them. Thus, requiring the appellants to  face  criminal  proceedings
was nothing but abuse of the Court’s process.

8.    On 27th June, 2011, while issuing notice  this  Court  stayed  further
proceedings in the criminal complaint.

9.    We have gone through the FIR and the criminal complaint.  In the  FIR,
the appellants have not been named and in the criminal complaint  they  have
been named without attributing any specific role to them.  The  relationship
of the appellants with the husband of the complainant is distant.   In  Kans
Raj vs. State of Punjab & Ors.[1], it was observed:-
“5………A tendency has, however, developed for roping in all relations  of  the
in-laws of the deceased wives in the matters of dowry deaths which,  if  not
discouraged, is likely to affect the case of the  prosecution  even  against
the real culprits. In their over enthusiasm and anxiety to  seek  conviction
for maximum people, the parents of  the  deceased  have  been  found  to  be
making efforts for involving other relations  which  ultimately  weaken  the
case of the prosecution even against the real accused  as  appears  to  have
happened in the instant case.”

      The Court has, thus, to be  careful  in  summoning  distant  relatives
without there being specific material.  Only the husband, his parents or  at
best close family members may be expected to demand dowry or to  harass  the
wife but not  distant  relations,  unless  there  is  tangible  material  to
support allegations made against such distant  relations.   Mere  naming  of
distant relations is not enough to summon them in absence  of  any  specific
role and material to support such role.


10.   The parameters for quashing proceedings in a  criminal  complaint  are
well known.  If there are triable issues, the Court is not  expected  to  go
into the veracity of the rival versions but where on the  face  of  it,  the
criminal proceedings are abuse of  Court’s  process,  quashing  jurisdiction
can be exercised.  Reference may be made to  K.  Ramakrsihna  and  Ors.  vs.
State of Bihar and Anr.[2], Pepsi Foods Ltd. and Anr. vs.  Special  Judicial
Magistrate and Ors.[3], State of Haryana and Ors. vs.  Ch.  Bhajan  Lal  and
Ors.[4] and Asmathunnisa  vs.  State  of  A.P.  represented  by  the  Public
Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad and Anr.[5].

11.   Applying the above tests, the proceedings  in  the  present  case  are
clearly the abuse of the Court’s process.

12.   Accordingly, we allow this appeal and quash  the  proceedings  against
the appellants, without  expressing  any  opinion  about  the  case  of  the
complainant against the other accused.

                                                         .……..…………………………….J.
                                                         [ V. GOPALA GOWDA ]

                                                         .….………………………………..J.
NEW DELHI                          [ ADARSH KUMAR GOEL ]
            September 16, 2014
ITEM NO.1A-For Judgment       COURT NO.14               SECTION II

               S U P R E M E  C O U R T  O F  I N D I A
                       RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Crl.A.No......../2014 arising from Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal
(Crl.)  No(s).  4656/2011

 KAILASH CHANDRA AGRAWAL & ANR                      Petitioner(s)

                                VERSUS

STATE OF U.P.& ORS.                                Respondent(s)


Date : 16/09/2014 This petition was called on for Judgment today.


For Petitioner(s)
                     Mr. Shekhar Kumar,Adv.

For Respondent(s)
                     Ms. Shomila Bakshi,Adv.
                     Mrs. Mona K. Rajvanshi,Adv.
                     Mr. M. R. Shamshad,Adv.

            Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel  pronounced  the  judgment
of  the  Bench  comprising  Hon'ble  Mr.  Justice  V.Gopala  Gowda  and  His
Lordship.
            Leave granted.
            The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order.


    (VINOD KUMAR)                               (MALA KUMARI SHARMA)
      COURT MASTER                                COURT MASTER
            (Signed Non-Reportable judgment is placed on the file)


-----------------------
[1]    (2000) 5 SCC 207
[2]    (2000) 8 SCC 547
[3]    (1998) 5 SCC 749
[4]    (1992) Suppl 1 SCC 335
[5]    (2011) 11 SCC 259

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.